A Jury of One's Peers

Litigants often complain about the composition of juries, noting that the racial, gender and/or socioeconomic composition of the jury is not reflective of the community or of the parties to the case. Similarly, particular interest groups, such as business entities or doctors' groups, believe that they do not face juries of their peers. Studies, including the Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System, corroborate the underrepresentation of various segments of the community in many jury pools. The only way to remedy these problems is to ensure all citizens an opportunity to serve and to convince them to avail themselves of that opportunity.

Pennsylvania now has enacted legislation enabling counties to expand the lists from which they draw potential jurors. Act 37, passed in 2007,  permits counties to use state income tax and welfare lists in addition to the voter registration and driver license lists that traditionally have been used to summon jurors.  

In addition, the Jury Service Committees of the Interbranch Commission on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness and the Commission on Justice Initiatives have been focusing on developing best practices related to jury selection.  In response to a specific request from Chief Justice Ralph Cappy, the Committees, under the direction of PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks are preparing a comprehensive report recommending standardized procedures for Pennsylvania counties to follow to govern the entire jury selection process, from the summonsing process to voir dire through actual service.  The goal is to develop a standardized process that will improve juror turnout, enhance the juror experience, and increase jury diversity.

Juror Compensation and other changes to make service more convenient

PMC is working to advance other proposals that aim to ensure that all citizens have an opportunity to serve. Such reforms include legislation increasing the fees paid to jurors for their service and requiring employers of a certain size to pay their employees their regular wages for time spent on jury duty. PMC also applauds the efforts of counties to minimize costs to jurors, by providing reduced parking, reimbursing transportation costs, and providing day care services. Such measures are tangible evidence of the courts' appreciation of jurors' time and do ease some of the burdens of jury service.

Currently, two bills are pending in the House that would increase juror compensation.  On May 20, 2008, the Courts Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on House Bills 601 and 1356.  PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks is among those testifying.

PMC believes that juror compensation should be increased so that more citizens will find it easier to serve.  Research demonstrates that increases in juror compensation lead to increased juror turnout and also helps to ensure that jury pools reflect the diversity of the communities from which they are drawn. PMC appreciates the consideration the sponsors of H.B. 601 and 1356 demonstrate for the critical service jurors provide.

Marks' testimony focused on the need for increased juror compensation as well as the need to find innovative funding sources so that the county court systems are not unduly burdened.

Changes in Trial Procedures to Enhance Juror Experience

In recent years, Pennsylvania has joined the majority of jurisdictions allowing jurors to take notes during trials.  Civil Rule of Procedure 223.2 requires jurors to be allowed to take notes in cases expected to last longer than two days.  The judge may permit jurors to take notes in shorter cases as well.  In addition, since 2005, a temporary Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 644, has allowed jurors in certain criminal cases to take notes. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has amended Criminal Rule of Procedure 644 governing juror note taking in criminal trials by deleting the sunset provision and permanently codifying the rule.  Earlier this year, the Supreme Court's Criminal Procedural Rules Committee recommended this change following a period of public comment.  A report accompanying the amendment explains that the three year experiment with note taking in criminal cases has received positive reviews by judges, lawyers and jurors.

The amendment now makes it clear that the relatively new procedures in place to govern juror note taking in Pennsylvania apply in both criminal and civil cases going forward.  In general, jurors are permitted but not required to take notes in cases expected to last longer than two days.  The judge has discretion to permit note taking in shorter cases as well.  In addition, the Court clarified Rule 646, governing evidence related to a defendant's confession and made clear that although written copies of a defendant's confession may not be taken into the jury room during deliberations, jurors may take notes during testimony about such a confession and may bring those notes into the jury room.

In addition to allowing jurors in some cases to take notes, Pennsylvania courts are exploring other ways to enhance jurors understanding of and participation in the trial process. These include revisiting rules related to the materials jurors can bring into the deliberation room as well as efforts to create more understandable jury instructions.

PMC also submitted written comments in support of a proposed Rule of Civil Procedure prohibiting jurors from electronically publicizing information and/or using electronic devices to research matters during trial or deliberations.

Reforms In Other States

The American Bar Association's Commission on the American Jury Project,  remains active in promoting jury service and educating the public about jury duty. In addition, states throughout the nation are working to improve their own jury systems. Here are some highlights:

• Texas increased its juror compensation from $6 per day to $6 for the first day and $40 per day thereafter;
• Arizona and Illinois are considering adopting (or in Arizona amending) a lengthy trial fund that will pay greater compensation for jurors serving on unusually long trials;
• Indiana passed legislation eliminating automatic exemptions from jury duty and protecting employees on jury duty from adverse reactions of employers; and
• California implemented standard plain language jury instructions for criminal trials.

The Center for Jury Studies at the National Center for State Courts has recently completed a comprehensive fifty state survey of the innovations various courts are implementing as they strive to improve their jury systems.